Bryan: about Hirsutism

[jimmystanley]

I am interested in the studies done on the effects of anti androgens against hirsutism. I'm currently using fluridil and keep my sanity by learning as much as i can.

 

[Bryan]

Here's an interesting little study by Rittmaster in which he tested topical spironolactone for hirsutism, and found that a cream vehicle worked better than an alcoholic solution:

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/spironolactone.txt

Bryan

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Here's an interesting little study by Rittmaster in which he tested topical spironolactone for hirsutism, and found that a cream vehicle worked better than an alcoholic solution:

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/spironolactone.txt

Bryan

Okay, how is spironolactone going to be effective for hairloss when the cream version actually made the hirsutism worse? :?

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Never mind. The "cream vehicle" is what actually made it worse. That must be the placebo they were using. I read it wrong sorry. :lol:

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

I wonder if fluridil could be used in an experiment like this? I don't see why not.

 

[Bryan]

Never mind. The "cream vehicle" is what actually made it worse. That must be the placebo they were using. I read it wrong sorry. :lol:

Yes, that would appear to be the best of both worlds, if you're using topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness in that same cream vehicle that they used in the study: the proven antiandrogenic effect of the spironolactone, combined with the apparent growth-stimulating effect of the cream!

Sure, fluridil could CERTAINLY be tested in exactly the same way. I wish to god somebody would do it!

Bryan

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Never mind. The "cream vehicle" is what actually made it worse. That must be the placebo they were using. I read it wrong sorry. :lol:

Yes, that would appear to be the best of both worlds, if you're using topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness in that same cream vehicle that they used in the study: the proven antiandrogenic effect of the spironolactone, combined with the apparent growth-stimulating effect of the cream!

Sure, fluridil could CERTAINLY be tested in exactly the same way. I wish to god somebody would do it!

Bryan

What type of cream was it? Dermovan? I sure as hell hope its not the same cream that Dr. Lee uses for his 5% spironolactone!!! I am really thinking about giving fluridil a go!! There have been quite a few people post some really good success with it. Compared to spironolactone................it sounds a bit more effective. I just wish that the company that makes fluridil could come up with a different vehicle other than alcohol!!

 

[Bryan]

What type of cream was it? Dermovan?

Just some typical vanishing cream. He gave the formula in the study.

I sure as hell hope its not the same cream that Dr. Lee uses for his 5% spironolactone!!!

Why is that?

Bryan

 

[Cornholio]

I dont find this study encouraging at all regarding the effects of spironolactone... The second part of the study with etoh base (closest to the 1% spironolactone/etoh from dr lee that I'm using) showed little effect in hirsuit women... It could be that the hair is sparse and weighing shaved hair in this area had a wide margin of error... making results not very accurate/reliable???

Here is another study using 2% spironolactone in aqueous cream, which did not show efficacy... http://www.ijem.org/iranian/9/4.html

Another study shows that 5% topical spironolactone decreased dht in sebaceous glands in males http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full

Another study shows that topical spironolactone did affect the size of the hamster flank organ (a model for androgenic stimulation) http://www.natural-hair.com/treatments_ ... 2691967ffa

Finally, You have dr. Lee's word and experience saying that spironolactone resulted in additive benifit when taken with minoxidil or xanadrox (no numbers or data, and yes, he sells it so he COULD be biased....)

Overall I think the best you can say is that spironolactone has some anti-androgen properties but hasnt been well studied in male pattern baldness (beyond dr lee's experience) to document an actual benefit in regrowth... This is more complicated when you consider that most considering spironolactone are already on finasteride or dutasteride... It would take a specific study under those condtions to see if spironolactone has an additive effect when taken when androgen production is already decreased significantly.... I dont know what the answer is, but am just using it out of hope...

I dont know that fluradil's studies are any more reliable...

A FOREARM/ OCCLUDED fluradil study, small numbers showing slight increase of proportion of hairs in anagen phase... Not really a study of scalp hair (I can't find a study of scalp hair)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _110220362
http://dreampharm.com/hair-growth/hair- ... 76_96.html

 

[S Foote.]

From the study quoted by Bryan:


"These results were encouraging but certainly preliminary.
One disturbing feature was that the hirsutism became worse
during the 3 months when the cream base was used."

"The long-term effectiveness of topically applied spironolac-
tone for hirsutism remains a question. The differences
observed between the alcohol-based spironolactone
solution and the cream based medication may relate
to the vehicle or perhaps small sample size."

Well, there you have it! The cream version seemed
to perform better. In fact, the alcoholic version may
not have performed AT ALL! :-( What's interesting
is that they used a spironolactone concentration in both vehicles
of only 1%; and what's very strange is the fact that the
cream vehicle made the hirsutism WORSE. That's food
for thought.

Bryan

Let me enlighten you Bryan

Topical spironolactone has been shown to do what it was designed to do, that is effect the local androgen receptors.

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... TARTPAGE=2

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

Abstract: The interaction between spironolactone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) receptors was evaluated with an autoradiographic technique. The inhibition of DHT receptors by spironolactone was found to be related to the decrease of tritiated DHT granules in the sebaceous glands of the treated site. 6 male patients affected by acne vulgaris entered the study. The acute study was performed by applying to 25 cm2 of the back a cream containing 5% spironolactone under occlusive dressing. The dosage of spironolactone applied was 4 mg/cm2 for 48 h. The long-term study was performed by applying the same amount to the entire back, without occlusion, twice daily for 1 month. Skin biopsies were taken at the end of the treatment, incubated with tritiated DHT and processed for autoradiography. Both the acute and the long-term study revealed a decrease of the autoradiographic granules in the treated site. This effect is related to the binding of spironolactone with dihydrotestosterone receptors in the sebaceous glands. Our study demonstrates that 5% topical spironolactone cream acts as an antiandrogen in human sebaceous glands, competing with DHT receptors and producing a decrease of labelled DHT. At the concentrations used the effect has been only local. No side-effects were recorded during both studies."

There is no reason from this study, why spironolactone should not have the same effect upon the `local' androgen receptors in hair follicles!! :wink:

So the only conclusion we can reach from the failure of spironolactone in this hirstutism study, is that the androgen receptors in follicles `don't matter' in hair growth, and the receptors that `DO' matter are deeper and out of the reach of spironolactone

This is yet another study result that the current theory you support just can't answer Bryan. 8)

S Foote.

 

[GeminiX]

Oral spironolactone is *very* popular among the transgender community and is used to reduce body hair and to improve general hair quality and thickness on the head; It's one of the "staple" pills on the TG regimen.

Generally it's taken if people are not able to cope with or are not affected by the sides of Androcur.

Even with the large doses and pretty extreme regimen that TS/TG individuals typically are on, there is little reduction in facial hair. It does soften, and grow somewhat slower after a few years of use but one generally still has to shave daily until more permanent steps have been taken (i.e. laser/blended ipl/eletro etc.).

D

 

[Bryan]

I dont find this study encouraging at all regarding the effects of spironolactone... The second part of the study with etoh base (closest to the 1% spironolactone/etoh from dr lee that I'm using) showed little effect in hirsuit women...

Yeah, but the point is that the CREAM version of topical spironolactone DID perform well! And BTW, Dr. Lee's alcoholic version is 2%, not 1%, unless he's recently changed his formulation.

The study clearly suggests that the effectiveness of topical spironolactone depends to a great deal on the specific vehicle that's used. The cream that Rittmaster used seems to be considerably more effective than the alcohol solution.

Here is another study using 2% spironolactone in aqueous cream, which did not show efficacy... http://www.ijem.org/iranian/9/4.html

That's an interesting contradictory study. I'll check the medical library next time I'm there, to see if we carry that journal here in Houston. I'll be curious to see the actual NUMBERS involved in their results, not just their superficial summary that it didn't work. In other words, it may be possible that there was SOME effect on hirsutism, but they simply didn't consider it to be clinically significant.

Finally, You have dr. Lee's word and experience saying that spironolactone resulted in additive benifit when taken with minoxidil or xanadrox (no numbers or data, and yes, he sells it so he COULD be biased....)

HUH?? It ain't just Dr. Lee who has experience with topical spironolactone. Others used it long before he did, including Dr. Proctor, Norman Orentriech, and others.

Overall I think the best you can say is that spironolactone has some anti-androgen properties but hasnt been well studied in male pattern baldness (beyond dr lee's experience) to document an actual benefit in regrowth...

Why does this keep getting back to Dr. Lee??

Again, several others besides Dr. Lee have used and tested topical spironolactone, for both male pattern baldness and hirsutism. And don't forget the published Italian study of topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness! :wink:

A FOREARM/ OCCLUDED fluradil study, small numbers showing slight increase of proportion of hairs in anagen phase...

Uhhh...the increase in anagen-phase hairs was in SCALP follicles, not forearm follicles!

Not really a study of scalp hair (I can't find a study of scalp hair)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _110220362
http://dreampharm.com/hair-growth/hair- ... 76_96.html

Uhhh...they DID include scalp hair. Read them again! They are all referring to the main fluridil study which tested sensitivity to the drug on human forearm skin, and then measured anagen/telogen ratios in human scalps.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Let me enlighten you Bryan

Topical spironolactone has been shown to do what it was designed to do, that is effect the local androgen receptors.

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

There is no reason from this study, why spironolactone should not have the same effect upon the `local' androgen receptors in hair follicles!! :wink:

So the only conclusion we can reach from the failure of spironolactone in this hirstutism study, is that the androgen receptors in follicles `don't matter' in hair growth, and the receptors that `DO' matter are deeper and out of the reach of spironolactone

This is yet another study result that the current theory you support just can't answer Bryan. 8)

Jesus Christ, can you even READ, Stephen?? There wasn't a "failure" of spironolactone in the hirsutism study, except with the ineffective alcoholic vehicle. It WORKED, when applied in the cream vehicle.

I predicted in that other thread that you would get busy and try to think-up some kooky explanation for the successful topical spironolactone experiment that would be compatible with your eccentric theory. But you gotta do a LOT better than just acknowledge the one failed result, and ignore the POSITIVE one! :wink:

Like I said before, this is yet another nail in the coffin for your theory.

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

From the study quoted by Bryan:

"These results were encouraging but certainly preliminary.
One disturbing feature was that the hirsutism became worse
during the 3 months when the cream base was used."

Yes, but what is disturbing to those with hirsutism is encouraging to us. That is because the vehicles have a mild hypertrichotic effect (via non androgen-mediated pathways).

Let me enlighten you Bryan

Topical spironolactone has been shown to do what it was designed to do, that is effect the local androgen receptors.

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... adid=50633

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

Gee, I didn't expect to see you quoting me.... Who would've thunk?

 

[Dave001]

Again, several others besides Dr. Lee have used and tested topical spironolactone, for both male pattern baldness and hirsutism. And don't forget the published Italian study of topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness! :wink:

Isn't it ironic that in the case of topical spironolactone, people seem to conveniently forget that in the TWO studies performed specifically with respect to androgenetic alopecia, the results were encouraging? :wink:

 

[S Foote.]

Let me enlighten you Bryan

Topical spironolactone has been shown to do what it was designed to do, that is effect the local androgen receptors.

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

There is no reason from this study, why spironolactone should not have the same effect upon the `local' androgen receptors in hair follicles!! :wink:

So the only conclusion we can reach from the failure of spironolactone in this hirstutism study, is that the androgen receptors in follicles `don't matter' in hair growth, and the receptors that `DO' matter are deeper and out of the reach of spironolactone

This is yet another study result that the current theory you support just can't answer Bryan. 8)

Jesus Christ, can you even READ, Stephen?? There wasn't a "failure" of spironolactone in the hirsutism study, except with the ineffective alcoholic vehicle. It WORKED, when applied in the cream vehicle.

I predicted in that other thread that you would get busy and try to think-up some kooky explanation for the successful topical spironolactone experiment that would be compatible with your eccentric theory. But you gotta do a LOT better than just acknowledge the one failed result, and ignore the POSITIVE one! :wink:

Like I said before, this is yet another nail in the coffin for your theory.

Bryan

I can read Bryan, and i read your `OWN' comments which i will quote again:


"Well, there you have it! The cream version seemed
to perform better. In fact, the alcoholic version may
not have performed AT ALL! :-( What's interesting
is that they used a spironolactone concentration in both vehicles
of only 1%; and what's very strange is the fact that the
cream vehicle made the hirsutism WORSE. That's food
for thought.

Bryan"

That's a `failure' of topical spironolactone to have any meaningful effect in hisutism by scientific criteria, as you admit yourself :roll: :roll:

dodging around looking for excuses now, isn't getting you any points Bryan :wink:

The current theory you support says that it is the androgen receptors in the follicles, that are important in both DHT related hair loss and hair growth. So topical spironolactone should effectively stop this hisutism dead!

Enough of the poor penetration excuse here. Both vehicles have enough research behind them for us to know the medication would at least be getting into the follicle cells, where you claim it matters!!

What should be obvious in these topical spironolactone tests, is that if the different vehicles are producing such a difference in results, a `deeper' penetration `MATTERS' Not the surface penetration into the follicles.

Now lets be clear Bryan, this has nothing to do with my theory so stop trying your usual distraction. :wink:

This concerns the current theory you support, and there is just no way you can reconcile these studies to your theory, paricularly in the light of the the topical finasteride study in histutism.

http://www.aace.com/pub/ep/finasteride.php

Here a mere 0.25% Finasreride cream, showed much better results that the same spironolactone studies.

Simple conclusion, it is what is happening `outside' of the follicles in the deeper tisues that matters :wink:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

From the study quoted by Bryan:

"These results were encouraging but certainly preliminary.
One disturbing feature was that the hirsutism became worse
during the 3 months when the cream base was used."

Yes, but what is disturbing to those with hirsutism is encouraging to us. That is because the vehicles have a mild hypertrichotic effect (via non androgen-mediated pathways).

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... adid=50633[/url]

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

Gee, I didn't expect to see you quoting me.... Who would've thunk?[/quote:eff6d]

Hey Dave.

Are you ready to tells us all how Ockhams razor refutes my theory?????

Or do you still need more time? :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

The current theory you support says that it is the androgen receptors in the follicles, that are important in both DHT related hair loss and hair growth. So topical spironolactone should effectively stop this hisutism dead!

Enough of the poor penetration excuse here. Both vehicles have enough research behind them for us to know the medication would at least be getting into the follicle cells, where you claim it matters!!

What should be obvious in these topical spironolactone tests, is that if the different vehicles are producing such a difference in results, a `deeper' penetration `MATTERS' Not the surface penetration into the follicles.

What a stinking pile of HORSE-sh*t. You've reached a new low, Stephen. Every reader here can tell that you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, in a futile attempt to salvage your theory. Your excuses are getting more and more ad hoc with each passing day.

This concerns the current theory you support, and there is just no way you can reconcile these studies to your theory, paricularly in the light of the the topical finasteride study in histutism.

http://www.aace.com/pub/ep/finasteride.php

Here a mere 0.25% Finasreride cream, showed much better results that the same spironolactone studies.

Simple conclusion, it is what is happening `outside' of the follicles in the deeper tisues that matters :wink:

I can't believe the NERVE you have, in trying to make everybody believe that study supports your zany theory. It showed a LOCAL EFFECT, for the love of god! It suppressed hair growth only where it was applied.

You're getting more and more desperate, and everybody knows it.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

The current theory you support says that it is the androgen receptors in the follicles, that are important in both DHT related hair loss and hair growth. So topical spironolactone should effectively stop this hisutism dead!

Enough of the poor penetration excuse here. Both vehicles have enough research behind them for us to know the medication would at least be getting into the follicle cells, where you claim it matters!!

What should be obvious in these topical spironolactone tests, is that if the different vehicles are producing such a difference in results, a `deeper' penetration `MATTERS' Not the surface penetration into the follicles.

What a stinking pile of HORSE-sh*t. You've reached a new low, Stephen. Every reader here can tell that you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, in a futile attempt to salvage your theory. Your excuses are getting more and more ad hoc with each passing day.

http://www.aace.com/pub/ep/finasteride.php[/url]

Here a mere 0.25% Finasreride cream, showed much better results that the same spironolactone studies.

Simple conclusion, it is what is happening `outside' of the follicles in the deeper tisues that matters :wink:

I can't believe the NERVE you have, in trying to make everybody believe that study supports your zany theory. It showed a LOCAL EFFECT, for the love of god! It suppressed hair growth only where it was applied.

You're getting more and more desperate, and everybody knows it.

Bryan[/quote:b8d95]

What ever happened to any real science in your arguments Bryan?

Your sheer panic to try to salvage some personal prestige here is now clear for all to see :wink:

If you had a scientific argument (which you obviously Dont!), you would answer the specific points i raised! But we both know you can't do this, so as usual you just start rambling about my theory :roll:

There is a simple bottom line here as you well know Bryan, because it involves a basic point that disproves the theory you support altogether :wink: You know about this because i have raised this before and you have always avoided this issue!

Are you going to just concede this debate now Bryan, or do i have to post the relevant point you already `know' about, and embarrass you yet again?

S Foote.

 

[Dice_Has_Hair]

Let me enlighten you Bryan

Topical spironolactone has been shown to do what it was designed to do, that is effect the local androgen receptors.

Quote:
"Berardesca, E., P. Gabba, et al. (1988). "Topical spironolactone inhibits dihydrotestosterone receptors in human sebaceous glands: an autoradiographic study in subjects with acne vulgaris." International Journal of Tissue Reactions 10(2): 115-9.

There is no reason from this study, why spironolactone should not have the same effect upon the `local' androgen receptors in hair follicles!! :wink:

So the only conclusion we can reach from the failure of spironolactone in this hirstutism study, is that the androgen receptors in follicles `don't matter' in hair growth, and the receptors that `DO' matter are deeper and out of the reach of spironolactone

This is yet another study result that the current theory you support just can't answer Bryan. 8)

Jesus Christ, can you even READ, Stephen?? There wasn't a "failure" of spironolactone in the hirsutism study, except with the ineffective alcoholic vehicle. It WORKED, when applied in the cream vehicle.

I predicted in that other thread that you would get busy and try to think-up some kooky explanation for the successful topical spironolactone experiment that would be compatible with your eccentric theory. But you gotta do a LOT better than just acknowledge the one failed result, and ignore the POSITIVE one! :wink:

Like I said before, this is yet another nail in the coffin for your theory.

Bryan

Yes and the cream vehicle alone(placebo?) actually made the hirtuism worse. Now, from what I understand, that same vehicle is the same that they used for the spironolactone as well, that actually worked. Just think how much better the spironolactone would have done if they used a different cream vehicle that didn't make the hirtusim worse. I bet the positive results would have been doubled. I really think that spironolactone has its place in male pattern baldness, being a good androgen. And just remember they only used 1%. As far as I know, spironolactone is dose dependant. They should do a study on hirtuism with Dr. Lees 2% topical spironolactone solution and 5% topical spironolactone cream, and see which one does better. I bet the 5% cream would get the best results.